I understand what Mr. Fergus is saying, in principle. At first glance, it does not seem unreasonable.
But I would like to expand on what Ms. Vignola said. I do not know if my colleagues remember the case of Sylvie Therrien, a former public servant who worked in the area of employment insurance. At one time, the Harper government circulated an internal memo saying that all employment insurance applications from seasonal workers had to be denied because they were costing the government so much. As Ms. Therrien stated in a grievance filed under her collective agreement, she had no other avenues of recourse. It was deemed that she already have an avenue of recourse. This public servant, Ms. Therrien, was therefore left without recourse. She was lucky, though, because the union took the case all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal. In the end, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled, through a mechanism that is exactly like the one proposed in amendment G‑7, which is similar to the one proposed in G‑6, that workers' rights had been violated. If we were to adopt G‑7, we would be doing the exact same thing again. That is why we are opposed to it.
What we have in the bill does not provide multiple avenues of recourse; rather, the purpose is to ensure that a worker is not left with no recourse, as established by the Federal Court of Appeal and in the case law.
I would like my colleagues to reconsider their position on this. We think this amendment really contradicts the bill, which does not include the risk of multiple avenues of recourse.